previously obtained a license for that purpose from some two of
the justices of the Supreme Court, which license shall constitute
the person receiving the same an attorney and counselor-at-law,
and shall authorize him to appear in all the courts of record
within this State, and there to practice as an attorney and
counselor-at-law, according to the laws and customs thereof.

The Supreme Court denied the application, apparently upon the
ground that it was a woman who made it. The record is not very
perfect, but it may be fairly taken that the plaintiff asserted
her right to a license on the grounds, among others, that she was
a citizen of the United States, and that having been a citizen of
Vermont at one time, she was, in the State of Illinois, entitled
to any right granted to citizens of the latter State. The court
having overruled these claims of right, founded on the clauses of
the Federal Constitution before referred, those propositions may
be considered as properly before this court.

As regards the provision of the Constitution that citizens of
each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities
of citizens in the several States, the plaintiff in her affidavit
has stated very clearly a case to which it is inapplicable. The
protection designed by that clause, as has been repeatedly held,
has no application to a citizen of the State whose laws are
complained of. If the plaintiff was a citizen of the State of
Illinois, that provision of the Constitution gave her no
protection against its courts or its legislation. The plaintiff
seems to have seen this difficulty, and attempts to avoid it by
stating that she was born in Vermont. While she remained in
Vermont that circumstance made her a citizen of that State. But
she states, at the same time, that she is a citizen of the United
States, and that she is now, and has been for many years past, a
resident of Chicago, in the State of Illinois.

The XIV. Amendment declares that citizens of the United States
are citizens of the State within which they reside; therefore
plaintiff was, at the time of making her application, a citizen
of the United States and a citizen of the State of Illinois. We
do not here mean to say that there may not be a temporary
residence in one State, with